3 ms·

Sweden can do jack shit if Russia _really_ decides it needs to go somewhere, even without the nukes. Their submarine fleet is 4th largest by vessel count, and l

by m0zg 7y ago

Sweden can do jack shit if Russia _really_ decides it needs to go somewhere, even without the nukes. Their submarine fleet is 4th largest by vessel count, and likely 2nd strongest (after the US) by strength. Much of it is also nuclear, so you don't really know where it is at any given time - a few subs are always parked in the Atlantic just in case. Sweden also has 1/14th the population of Russia, and 1/4th the population of Ukraine. I don't see what Sweden could do with this (im-)balance of power with a few puny conventional submarines and why anyone in the Russian Navy would be afraid of anything they can possibly do.

NicoJuicy 7y ago
It's army is mostly old gear. The USSR was way bigger, stronger and still everything crumbled. Russia is more scared than you think, since their capital literally became in firing range in a short period. The enemy is not an army, but internal unrest.
avianlyric 7y ago
I don’t think a big submarine fleet really helps you if you can’t get them out of port. Have a country next door with a bunch of subs you can’t detect is a threat. Remember these “puny conventional” submarines are the ones that ran circles around an entire US carrier taskforce, the crown jewels of the US navy. I doubt Russia has anything significantly better.
jcranmer 7y ago
This is the same Russian Navy that, less than a year ago, managed to sink a floating drydock while refitting their sole aircraft carrier, damaging the latter and keeping it out of commission for longer. Like the rest of the Soviet military assets, it suffered heavily in the collapse of the USSR, but there hasn't been the revitalization effort in Putin's administration that there has been in the Army and Air Force.
- m0zg 7y ago
  Navy does not "refit" anything - shipyards do that. Russia doesn't have much of an above-water Navy - it doesn't really need it. What's the point of spending billions on something that will be sunk wholesale in the first few hours of any armed conflict with any capable adversary? Its submarine fleet, however, is formidable, as are its anti-ship rocket and torpedo capabilities.
  - greedo 7y ago
    The Russian submarine fleet is anything but formidable. Yes, the Yasen class is nice, but Russia can't afford them. The Borei is a decent SSBN, but the numbers are just too small to be formidable. The Lada isn't bad for an SSK, but again, no real budget. The rest of the fleet is comprised of Kilos, Akulas, and Oscars. These would have been formidable in the 1980s, but they're outclassed by most NATO fleets (excluding Germany which has let their entire military collapse). Your sub-launched ASMs are nice though. Wouldn't want to be on the receiving end, but since most of the SSGNs don't leave port, not really much of a threat.
yongjik 7y ago
On the other hand, if you add up the national GDP of Sweden+Norway+Denmark+Finland you get about 538+398+324+251 = 1.511 trillion dollars, similar to that of Russia (1.578) as of 2017. So, just these four nations have combined economic power to match Russia: Russia can't afford a sustained war, though it may afford a quick act of aggression (a la Crimea) followed by everyone pointing fingers at everyone else. But it's a risky game because it will push their economy even further behind.
- m0zg 7y ago
  There was no "aggression" in Crimea. Not a single shot was fired. And Russia did in the past "afford" several sustained wars of the scale unimaginable in this day and age. It was much weaker then that it is today, and fought much stronger adversaries (Napoleon and Hitler, to name just a few).
- kriberg 7y ago
  There's also the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund currently evaluated at 1.1 trillion dollars. The fund holds stocks, property and other assets all around the world.
myrandomcomment 7y ago
The Russians cannot send an aircraft carrier to the Middle East without a tow ship. The Russian navy is a paper tiger. The only reason that anyone cares about a Russian threat is the nukes, period. I will bet on the Swedes.

by m0zg 7y ago

NicoJuicy 7y ago

It's army is mostly old gear. The USSR was way bigger, stronger and still everything crumbled. Russia is more scared than you think, since their capital literally became in firing range in a short period. The enemy is not an army, but internal unrest.

avianlyric 7y ago

I don’t think a big submarine fleet really helps you if you can’t get them out of port. Have a country next door with a bunch of subs you can’t detect is a threat. Remember these “puny conventional” submarines are the ones that ran circles around an entire US carrier taskforce, the crown jewels of the US navy. I doubt Russia has anything significantly better.

jcranmer 7y ago

This is the same Russian Navy that, less than a year ago, managed to sink a floating drydock while refitting their sole aircraft carrier, damaging the latter and keeping it out of commission for longer. Like the rest of the Soviet military assets, it suffered heavily in the collapse of the USSR, but there hasn't been the revitalization effort in Putin's administration that there has been in the Army and Air Force.

m0zg 7y ago
Navy does not "refit" anything - shipyards do that. Russia doesn't have much of an above-water Navy - it doesn't really need it. What's the point of spending billions on something that will be sunk wholesale in the first few hours of any armed conflict with any capable adversary? Its submarine fleet, however, is formidable, as are its anti-ship rocket and torpedo capabilities.
- greedo 7y ago
  The Russian submarine fleet is anything but formidable. Yes, the Yasen class is nice, but Russia can't afford them. The Borei is a decent SSBN, but the numbers are just too small to be formidable. The Lada isn't bad for an SSK, but again, no real budget. The rest of the fleet is comprised of Kilos, Akulas, and Oscars. These would have been formidable in the 1980s, but they're outclassed by most NATO fleets (excluding Germany which has let their entire military collapse). Your sub-launched ASMs are nice though. Wouldn't want to be on the receiving end, but since most of the SSGNs don't leave port, not really much of a threat.

yongjik 7y ago

On the other hand, if you add up the national GDP of Sweden+Norway+Denmark+Finland you get about 538+398+324+251 = 1.511 trillion dollars, similar to that of Russia (1.578) as of 2017. So, just these four nations have combined economic power to match Russia: Russia can't afford a sustained war, though it may afford a quick act of aggression (a la Crimea) followed by everyone pointing fingers at everyone else. But it's a risky game because it will push their economy even further behind.

m0zg 7y ago
There was no "aggression" in Crimea. Not a single shot was fired. And Russia did in the past "afford" several sustained wars of the scale unimaginable in this day and age. It was much weaker then that it is today, and fought much stronger adversaries (Napoleon and Hitler, to name just a few).
kriberg 7y ago
There's also the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund currently evaluated at 1.1 trillion dollars. The fund holds stocks, property and other assets all around the world.

myrandomcomment 7y ago

The Russians cannot send an aircraft carrier to the Middle East without a tow ship. The Russian navy is a paper tiger. The only reason that anyone cares about a Russian threat is the nukes, period. I will bet on the Swedes.